NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL OF INDIA UNIVERSITY,

BENGALURU

PROJECT ASSIGNMENT ON:

INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF
CONTRACTS
Interpretation and Construction of the Indemnity clauses:
A Judicial Analysis

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Prashant Desai Shelly Sharan
LL.M., ID. No. 843

1
 Abstract
Contractual law is one of the bulwarks of the fundamental laws of any country. It is the pivotal
commercial law which ensures that promises made must be kept in good faith and encourage fair and
smooth transactions. Indemnity is one of the kinds of contract and since in most of the jurisdictions it
includes within its ambit all the insurance contracts except life insurance contract, it’s imperative to
determine those principles which governs the interpretation of indemnity clauses. The task of
interpretation has been conventionally assigned to the judiciary which along with the interpretation also
ensures construction of contracts. This paper seeks to trace the development of principles of
interpretation and construction of indemnity clauses. By ascertaining the principles applicable to the
interpretation of these clauses this paper studies the main problem areas of the interpretation and the
present tools devised by the courts to simplify the process of interpretation. The author has analysed the
present legal opinion and methods with respect to the interpretation of the indemnity clauses.

Key words: Indemnity clauses, interpretation, construction, indemnitor, indemnitee, negligence, strict
liability.

2
 Table of contents
Title Page no.

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

Aims and objectives……………………………………………………………………………… 5

Hypothesis…………………………………………………………………………………….…. 5

Research Questions………………………………………………………………………………. 5

Research methodology…………………………………………………………………………… 5

Principles to be applied in the interpretation and construction of

the indemnity clauses……………………………………………………………………………...6

General Principles………………………………………………………………………………... 6

Specific Principles………………………………………………………………………………... 8

Contra proferentem rule……………………………………………………………………………9

Indemnification from the indemnity-holder’s own negligence……………………………………9

Indemnification from one’s own strict liability……………………………………………………11

Forfeiture and the duty to mitigate…………………………………………………………………11

Duty to defend and pleading rule…………………………………………………………………. 11

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………...12

Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………….13

3
Introduction

Indemnity is a promise to a person to prevent him harmless from the consequences of the acts of the
promisor or any other party. Indemnity clauses are one of the important parts of commercial contracts
and indemnity can be either expressed or implied. The English definition of indemnity contract is wide
enough to include losses arising due to starkly different reasons which can be loss caused through
accident, fire, insurance contracts other than the contracts of life insurance. The person who gives the
indemnity is called “indemnifier” or “indemnitor” and the person for whose protection it is given is
called “indemnity holder”, “indemnified” or “indemnitee” in different jurisdictions. Indemnity can be
given to the indemnified either in the form of independent contract or by inserting the indemnity clause
in the commercial contract itself. E.g. A undertakes to construct a building for B corp., A has assigned
the work of water fittings to one sub-contractor C, in this case either B can enter into a separate contract
of indemnity with A to indemnify him against any loss caused to the Corp. by or by the workers of the
sub-contractor or he can while the formation of contract of construction of building simply add an
indemnity clause in that contract to prevent harmless B Corp. from any loss caused to it due to the acts
of sub-contractor or the workers under him. Indemnity clause is a crucial part of the commercial
contracts since it helps in risk allocation on the happening of particular event and provide remedy in the
and thus reduces the monetary burden over individual entering into the contract, which in a way also
increases the confidence of the person entering into contract.. The Indian law confines the scope of
indemnity by defining it in certain explicit terms. It defines the contract of indemnity as a contract by
which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor
himself, or by the conduct of any other person.1Therefore, under Indian jurisdiction the insurance
contracts are not covered by the indemnity contract rather it is dealt with by the contingent contract.
The indemnity clauses are typically of six kinds viz.,

Bare indemnities: Where one party seeks to indemnify the other for all losses and liabilities arising out
of a particular event. In such cases the clause remains silent on the point whether the indemnifier would
indemnify the indemnified also for the losses arising out of the act of the indemnified itself.

Reverse or reflexive indemnities: where one party indemnifies the other for all losses arising out of
the acts or omissions of the latter including the acts of negligence.

Proportionate or Limited Indemnities: Where one party indemnifies the other party for all the losses
and liabilities except those losses which have arisen due to latter’s own negligence.

Third Party Liability: Where one party indemnifies the other for the losses or liabilities arising out of
the acts of any third party.

1
Sec.124, The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

4
Financing Indemnities: Where one party indemnifies the other party for the losses arisen due to the
failure of a third party to discharge its financial obligation towards that other party.

Party/Party Indemnities: each party to a contract indemnifies the other for losses which may arise in
case of breach of a contract by the indemnifier.

Aims and Objectives

The main objective of this research is to study the principles used in the interpretation and construction
of indemnity clauses in a comprehensive way and to elaborate the specific principles applicable in the
process of interpretation of the indemnity clauses. The researcher has attempted to determine the present
legal position regarding the applicability of the specific principles of the interpretation and construction
of the indemnity clauses, as evolved by the Courts of law through case laws in different jurisdictions.

Hypothesis

The interpretation and construction of indemnity clauses requires in addition to the application of
general principles of interpretation and construction of contracts the use of some additional rules of
interpretation the applicability of which differs in different jurisdictions as they are applied only when
they are in consonance with the public policy and substantive laws of the jurisdiction.

Research questions

1.Whether the general principles of the interpretation and construction of contracts are applicable for
the interpretation and construction of indemnity clauses?

2.Whether there are any specific principles for the interpretation and construction of indemnity clauses?

3.Whether the specific principles of interpretation and construction of indemnity clauses applied
uniformly in different jurisdictions?

Research Methodology

The methodology followed in this research is doctrinal and analytical. The primary and wherever
necessary secondary sources have been used to conduct the research.

5
 Principles to be applied in the interpretation and construction of the indemnity clauses

Indemnity clauses are a part of commercial contracts and it can also take the form of an independent
contract sometimes, this necessitates the application of the general principles of interpretation and
construction of contracts while construing the indemnity clauses. But it is a specific form of contract
which requires the application of certain additional principles of interpretation and construction of
contract attributable to its nature. Therefore, for the ease of understanding the principles applicable to
the interpretation and construction of indemnity clauses can be divided into two types:

1.General principles

2.Specific principles

General Principles

The most fundamental principle of the interpretation and construction of contracts is to determine and
enforce the intention of parties.

First step in the interpretation of contract is to ascertain the rights and liabilities imposed by the parties
on each other by virtue of the contract.

But there are occasions on which the parties do not provide explicitly in the contract for every situation,
in such cases the default rules which determine the contractual obligation of the parties become
important.2

When the expressions in the contract are ambiguous, a court may apply contra proferentem rule, which
requires the interpretation to be made in public interest without preferring the intent of the parties. There
are other circumstances in which the courts deliberately choose not to give effect to the intention of the
parties. E.g. where the expressed terms of the contract go contrary to the mandatory rules like rules of
non-enforcement of contract that are against public policy, rules violating the criteria of fixed minimum
wages.

Mandatory rules, default rules and altering rules are the three main rules of construction of contract.
Mandatory rules are those rules which apply to the contract irrespective of whatever has been
expressed by the parties in the contract. E.g. only those agreements which are made by virtue of free
consent of the parties would result into a valid contract, otherwise the contract would be either voidable
or void, therefore, it is important for the parties to make sure that the contract is based on their free
consent. One such rule is that on a breach of contract the party in default has to pay damages to the
other party. A default rule provides for the situation where the parties intent is absent and can’t be

2
Gregory Klass, Interpretation and Construction in Contract Law, 2018, p.1.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2971&context=facpub

6
proved by the evidence which leads to the application of the present legally established position on such
situation. e.g., the warranty of the goods with respect to their merchantable quality. Altering rule
specifies those conditions which are expressed in the contracts deliberately in order to remove any other
interpretation which the default rules might otherwise provide for such situation. e.g. a seller can waive
off his liability with respect to merchantability of goods sold by him by expressly providing in the
contract for it by introducing terms like “with all defaults” or “as is”.3 Another important rule of
construction is the parol evidence rule which says that ordinarily the interpretation and construction of
the contract would be made in accordance with the terms of the contract or the interpretation should be
confined to the four corners of the terms of the contract and no extrinsic evidence has to be used for the
construction of contract. This rule works in a more stringent manner when the parties add the integration
clause in the contract by stating that it is the final statement of all terms. The contract can also be deemed
integrated by the Court, if it appears to be so owing to its completeness and specificity.

In a case, the California Supreme Court held that the admissibility of the extrinsic evidence for the
purposes of construction of the contract would not depend upon whether the terms of the contract are
unambiguous and conveys complete and accurate meaning, but it would rather depend upon the fact
that whether the offered evidence is relevant to prove a meaning to which the language of the
instrument is reasonably susceptible4.

The common rules of the interpretation of contracts include the plain meaning use meaning, subjective
meaning, objective meaning, purpose, and belief and intent.5

The plain meaning or literal interpretation rule says that the contract should be interpreted according
to the literal meaning (or plain grammatical meaning) of the terms expressed in the written agreement,
without giving weightage to other considerations like the context in which the contract has been made
or any other extrinsic aid to interpretation.

For the interpretation of the contract either the court can resort to the subjective meaning or the
objective meaning. The former refers to what the parties have actually intended while making the
contract and the latter refers to the meaning that can be ascertained by a reasonable man by the words
and action employed while making the contract. In a case6, the Missouri Appellate Court held that
existence of a contract depends on the objective meaning of the parties involved in the contract and not
the subjective meaning that they have actually intended.

3
Id., p.16
4
Pacific Gas & Electric v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., 442 P.2d 641, 644 (Cal. 1968).
5
Gregory Klass, Interpretation and Construction in Contract Law, 2018, p.4.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2971&context=facpub
6
Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co., 105 S.W. 777, 777 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907).

7
 Specific principles

Indemnity clauses are found in commercial contracts especially the contracts related to the construction,
repair or maintenance. Common law and statutory principles both must be applied in the interpretation
of the indemnity clauses. The scope and nature of the contract of indemnity is to be determined
according to the terms of the indemnity clause. One important rule of construction of the indemnity
clause is that when the terms of the contract are ambiguous the interpretation by the Court is to be made
against the party whose words are to be interpreted which is generally the indemnitor, therefore, while
drafting such clause utmost care should be undertaken.

The most common cause resulting into the problem of interpretation is the absence of clauses setting
out clearly the specific liabilities and the duties to be observed by the indemnitee for obtaining the
indemnity. Such uncertainty of terms is the potential cause of interpretation and construction issues.
During drafting, the foreseeable effects must be taken into account.

Contextual interpretation is to be given to the indemnity clauses since sometimes the words expressed
in the written agreement are insufficient to convey the intention of the parties with clarity, on such
occasions context must be given heed to. E.g., A agrees to indemnify B in a contract for the repair of
solar panels against “all losses, liabilities and damages resulting from… any injury to the property”. In
this case if the parties interpret literally, it would mean the coverage of every kind of loss accrued by
B. But it is probable having regards to the past transactions of the parties with each other that they
would have understand the clause to cover third- party losses only.

Generally, the rule of strict construction is applied in case of indemnity clauses, although if something
is expressly mentioned in the written agreement then the courts use other methods of interpretation.
This was the traditional approach which has changed and the Courts now are allowed to stray away
from the strict construction. The contract of indemnity is enforceable unless it is inconsistent with the
statute or the public policy.

The interpretation of the scope and meaning of the indemnity clause is a question of law and not a
question of fact.7 However, in such cases many factual issues also arise which can be related to the
costs, conduct of the parties and the service of notice.

It is to be noted that the indemnity contract is different from the contract of guarantee. In a case 8, the
Court held that an indemnity is a contract by one party to save the other party harmless against losses,

7
Penny L. Parker; John Slavich, Contractual Efforts to Allocate the Risk of Environmental Liability: Is There
a Way to Make Indemnities Worth More Than the Paper They are Writtin On, 44 Sw. L.J. 1349 (1991), p.1355.
8
Yeoman Credit Ltd. v Latter [1961] 1 W.L.R 828

8
but the contract of guarantee is a contract imposing responsibility of payment of debt, miscarriage or
default of another who has the primary obligation to perform. Guarantors responsibility arises only in
the event of failure of the main debtor to make the repayment, while indemnity contract is a promise to
discharge the debtor’s liability in any event irrespective of the default of the main debtor. The aim of
the indemnity contract also differs from the purpose of the guarantee as the guarantee is related to the
object itself while the indemnity is aimed at preventing the indemnitee from economic losses. The only
available remedy in case of indemnity clause is claim for damages only while guarantees can have other
remedies too.

Contra proferentem rule: an indemnity clause would be interpreted by following the contra
proferentum rule which states that where the terms of the indemnity clauses are ambiguous, it will be
construed against the party putting it forward as the basis for escaping liability which would otherwise
be incurred9. But in certain circumstances this rule is not applied to the indemnity contracts viz., where
the terms of the contract are clear or unambiguous; where the wordings are not in favour of any one
party or where the contract seems to favour the parties equally.

Indemnification from the indemnity-holder’s own negligence

The indemnity clauses in some of the written agreements provide for terms of vast implications, e.g.,
the terms in which the contractor indemnifies the indemnitee from “any or all claims”. Such expressions
require explanation because they can potentially alter or magnify the scope of the indemnity clause. The
majority opinion with respect to such terms is that unless expressed in unequivocal terms in a written
contract, the contract will not be construed to indemnify the indemnitee against the losses resulting
through its own act of negligence.10 This opinion is based on the rationale that the term “ any or all
claims” is general and incapable of conveying any specific intention of the parties, moreover it can
cannot be construed in such a way to impose unreasonable burden on the indemnifier. The other view
is that the term “all or any claims” are clear and precise and it conveys the intent of the indemnifier to
indemnify the indemnitee from any claim against it, covering the claim arising out of the indemnitee’s
own negligence. If the term is given literal interpretation then the opinion of the minority seems to be
correct. The use of such terminology explicitly in the contract makes the intention of the parties, to
cover all the losses accrued to the indemnitee, evident. The Court of Louisiana has adopted the majority
opinion because of the difficulty in determining that whether the parties actually intended such broad
meaning and also due to policy consideration. In Arnold v. Stupp Corp.11, made it clear that it adheres
to the majority opinion in respect of the interpretation of the term “all or any claims”. In another case12,

9
Peel, Interpretation p. 9
10
Charles M. Pisano, Judicial Interpretation of Indemnity Clauses, 48 La. L. Rev. 169 (1987), p. 170.
11
205 So. 2d 797 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1967), writ denied, 251 La. 936, 207 So. 2d 540 (1968)
12
Mills v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 226 F. Supp. 786 (W.D. La. 1964), aff'd sub nom., Yuba Consol. Indus. v.
Fidelity & Casualty Co., 338 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1964).

9
the federal circuit court held that contracts providing indemnification to the indemnitee in case of the
latter’s negligence are disfavoured and can only be enforced if the terms of the written agreement in
unambiguous terms requires such interpretation. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed that an
indemnity clause providing indemnification to the indemnitee in cases of his own negligence would be
given strict interpretation and indemnification in such cases would not be allowed unless it has been
expressed by the written agreement in unequivocal terms.13

The strict interpretation in the case of indemnification due to indemnitee’s own negligence is supported
by equity considerations since if the indemnitee would be allowed to pass on his responsibility of due
care so easily upon the indemnifier, it would set a wrong trend because then people will tend to become
more lethargic and unwary. In Polozola II case14, the Court observed that there must be an unequivocal
intent appearing form the terms of the contract to indemnify the indemnitee for his own negligence, if
this is so indemnity can be granted, although it is not necessary that the indemnity clause has to specify
that in explicit terms in the contract. But, In Polozola III, the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal
categorized indemnity agreements into three kinds viz., agreements specifying that indemnifier will
indemnify the indemnitee from his own negligence; agreements specifying the indemnitee will not be
indemnified for his negligence and agreements that are silent on this point. Amongst the three
mentioned agreements, in case of the third kind of agreements courts remain reluctant to derive the
intent of the indemnifier to indemnify the indemnitee for his acts of negligence. As such intent can only
be inferred by the courts only if it has been mentioned explicitly.

Later in the case Jennings v. Ralston Purina Co.15 the Court concluded that each agreement must be
interpreted according to its intended meaning, and the absence of a specific reference to the
indemnitee’s ‘negligence’ is not decisive either way. It can be implied from it that “unequivocal” does
not require express reference to negligence of the indemnitee.

If the contract requires the indemnitor to carry insurance for the benefit of indemnitee, an intent to
indemnify from the indemnitee’s own negligence may be implied.

Almost in all jurisdictions, it has been maintained that for the indemnitee to be indemnified by the
indemnifier for his acts of negligence it is necessary that the provision to that effect must be made in
the contract. But there is one issue while following this rule, i.e., that the absence of the express
negligence rule in indemnity clauses to account will invalidate coverage. If a party fails to provide the
express provision any level of negligence on the part of indemnity will make him ineligible for the

13
Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., 343 So. 2d 1000 (La. 1977).
14
Soverign, 488 So. 2d at 986.

15
201 So. 2d 168 (La. App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 251 La. 215, 203 So. 2d 554 (1967).

10
indemnity. It becomes unjust in such events where the indemnitee has been slightly negligent. Such
slight negligence even five percent negligence would take away the indemnity from the indemnitee

Indemnification from one’s own strict liability

In the case of strict liability accrued by the indemnified, the situation differs from the cases of
negligence. The Supreme Court of Louisiana in Soverign Insurance Co. v. Texas Pipeline Co.16 held
that the rule of interpretation set out in Polozola II case does not apply to the question of whether parties
intended to indemnify against the indemnitee’s strict liability under the Civil Code article 2317.17 Strict
liability is not based on the indemnitee becoming culpable by reason of any act or omission on his part
as he becomes in case of negligence therefore, the amount of burden that is being shifted to the
indemnitor in this much less than that which arises in case of negligence. It would be less problematic
for the indemnitor to assume the responsibility in case of strict liability of the indemnitee as compared
to the case of its negligence. Therefore, the general terms used in the indemnity contract saying that the
indemnitor undertakes to indemnify the indemnitee for “any and all claims” will be deemed to include
an intent to indemnify the indemnitee from his strict liability.18 Even the United States Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals held that such language conveys a “clear Intention” to indemnify the indemnitee for
strict liability.

Forfeiture and the duty to mitigate

Common law prescribes certain acts which if committed by the indemnified party will result into
forfeiture or discharge of the indemnity. Generally, the acts which materially enhance the risk under the
indemnity contract or prejudicial to the rights of the indemnitor discharges the duty of the indemnitor
to indemnify.19 The indemnitee is therefore under the obligation to avoid any such acts or omission
which would result in the risk enhancement under indemnity. This duty of the indemnitor is called the
duty to mitigate, due to act prudently and reasonably or the duty to act in good faith.

Duty to defend and pleading rule

An indemnity agreement sometimes also contain provision stating that the indemnitor will defend the
indemnitee against suits and proceedings brought by the third parties. When such provisions are
expressed, the pleading rule has to be observed. The pleading rule requires that if the allegation posed
by the third party against the indemnitee are in relation to the subject- matter covered under the

16
488 So. 2d 982 (La. 1986).
17
Charles M. Pisano, Judicial Interpretation of Indemnity Clauses, 48 La. L. Rev. 169 (1987), p. 178.

18
Id., p.180.
19
American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. v. United States, 390 F. Supp. 63, 68 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).

11
indemnity contract entered into between him and the indemnitor, the former must be defended by the
latter20. It has to be done irrespective of whether the judgement came out in favour of the indemnitee or
against him. Such provisions substantially broaden the scope of indemnity clauses.

Conclusion

Indemnity clauses are the most important parts of the written agreement, as it facilitates risk allocation
and encourage commercial transactions. The Courts of different jurisdictions have time and again tried
to enumerate basic principles for the interpretation and construction of contracts. In every jurisdiction,
Court has interpreted such clauses in the ways that they must not be inconsistent with the substantive
law of the country or against its pubic policy. Since public policy of different jurisdictions differ, it gave
rise to the difference in the scope of indemnity clauses among different jurisdictions. In India, the
contract of insurance does not come within the ambit of contract of indemnity because the governing
legislation the Indian Contract Act, 1872 has limited the scope of the indemnity contract to the loss
arising out of the conduct of the indemnified or any other person. While in US and English jurisdiction
the contract of insurance is treated as contract of indemnity. The rules of construction and interpretation
of contracts are applicable to the indemnity clauses as well as indemnity is also a part of contract but
owing to the peculiar nature of the contract of indemnity there are some additional principles which are
to be taken into consideration while interpreting the indemnity contract. Such principles include rule of
strict construction, contra proferentem rule, etc. The indemnity clauses are interpreted on the basis of
the expressed terms of the clauses themselves. Where the Courts are assigned the task of interpreting
such clauses, they generally have followed the rule of strict construction. The indemnity clause is
different from guarantees. With respect to the indemnity clauses two instances of the accrual of losses
and the liability to indemnify against them becomes important, these two instances are, one, the
indemnity for the indemnitee’s own negligent acts or omissions and the other the duty to indemnify in
the event of the indemnitee’s loss arising out of his strict liability. There are situations which limit the
scope of the indemnity and lead to the forfeiture of the obligation to indemnify, one such circumstance
is the enhancement of the risk by the indemnitee itself. This imposes the duty on the indemnitee to avoid
such circumstances or take such steps that would mitigate the risk. When indemnity clause includes the
provision requiring the indemnitor to defend the indemnitee, the later is obligated to observe the
pleading rule. It can be concluded that when a party wants to be indemnified against its own negligent
acts, the contract must contain evidence of a clear, unequivocal consent by the parties to such an
agreement. While explicit terms stating that are not necessarily required, mere general ambiguous terms
are insufficient to prove it. but where the terms to such effect have been explicitly provided in the
contract, it should be deemed to be a conclusive evidence of an intent to indemnify the indemnity from

20Charles F. Lettow and John T. Byam, Generator-Disposer Indemnity Agreements,

The Business Lawyer, Vol. 39, No. 1 (November 1983), pp. 315-331, American Bar Association, p.329.

12
strict liability.21 The drafters can by adding expressly into the contract the stance of the parties involved
with respect to the liabilities arising out of the negligence and strict liability prevent the disputes. A
diligent and careful drafting can reduce the risk of future litigation in respect of interpretation and
construction of the indemnity clause.

Bibliography

The Indian Contract Act, 1872.

Gregory Klass, Interpretation and Construction in Contract Law, 2018, p.1.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2971&context=facpub

Penny L. Parker; John Slavich, Contractual Efforts to Allocate the Risk of Environmental Liability: Is There
a Way to Make Indemnities Worth More Than the Paper They are Writtin On, 44 Sw. L.J. 1349 (1991), p.1355.

Charles F. Lettow and John T. Byam, Generator-Disposer Indemnity Agreements,

The Business Lawyer, Vol. 39, No. 1 (November 1983), pp. 315-331, American Bar Association, p.329.

Peel, Interpretation p. 9

Charles M. Pisano, Judicial Interpretation of Indemnity Clauses, 48 La. L. Rev. 169 (1987), p. 170.

Pacific Gas & Electric v. G.W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co., 442 P.2d 641, 644 (Cal. 1968).

Embry v. Hargadine, McKittrick Dry Goods Co., 105 S.W. 777, 777 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907).

Yeoman Credit Ltd. v Latter [1961] 1 W.L.R 828.

Mills v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 226 F. Supp. 786 (W.D. La. 1964), aff'd sub nom., Yuba Consol. Indus. v.
Fidelity & Casualty Co., 338 F.2d 341 (5th Cir. 1964).

Polozola v. Garlock, Inc., 343 So. 2d 1000 (La. 1977).

American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc. v. United States, 390 F. Supp. 63, 68 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).

21
Charles M. Pisano, Judicial Interpretation of Indemnity Clauses, 48 La. L. Rev. 169 (1987), p. 181.

13
14